Branden-bashing garbage from Ouray


Ouray

Recommended Posts

I have just read "To Whom It May Concern"---Ayn Rand's letter to her readers outlining the reasons for her break with the Brandens, and I must say it is as lucid, clear, reasoned an essay as anything she ever wrote. What "clay feet", as one poster described here?

I'm not a "cultist" or follower of Rand, but the Brandens were clearly a dubious pair. I just will never understand the uproar over this statement of Rand's, or over Valliant, for that matter (excepting the short-comings of his dramatic writing style). Whatever "mistakes, flaws" and personal idiosyncranices one can mine out of Rand's 77 years on earth, it all bears no consequence to the consistency she demonstrated intellectually and morally. I have read the nitpicking on this site and others about her personal life and it is ghastly and tasteless. Should you not be all engaged in more, ah, shall we say, productive pursuits? What a waste of a great intellectual movement. I regret I ventured into finding out more about the "Objectivist Community". I like Rand's statement in her "To Whom", on the second to last page, where she says she never wanted to be the head of a "movement". She knew what would happen. It has happened. I'm sticking to Atlas---that is all I need to know. Ciao...

Edited by Ouray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just read "To Whom It May Concern"---Ayn Rand's letter to her readers outlining the reasons for her break with the Brandens, and I must say it is as lucid, clear, reasoned an essay as anything she has written. I will never understand the uproar over this, or over Valliant, and whatever "mistakes, flaws" and personal idiosyncranices one can mine out of Rand's 77 years on earth, bears no consequence to the consistency she demonstrated intellectually and morally. I have read the nitpicking on this site about her and her personal life and it is ghastly. What a waste of a great intellectual movement. I'm sticking to Atlas---that is all I need to know.

Is it not strange, that brilliant as Rand was, she was the Woman Scorned and she acted accordingly. That ole Debil sex seems to work independent of I.Q.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should you not be all engaged in more, ah, shall we say, productive pursuits?

Ouray,

Why are you posting here?

Is that one of your own "ah, shall we say, productive pursuits"?

Please read the posting guidelines and act accordingly on this site.

No Branden bashing qua Branden bashing.

Take it elsewhere.

EDIT: I split this garbage from the following thread: "To Whom It May Concern" and put it here in the Garbage Pile where it belongs. (Apologies to Bob K, who had to come with it.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anna Christoff,

This site holds opportunity for much more than talk about the personal relationships between the Brandens and Rand and talk about Rand’s personal life more generally. Anyone who wants to address Rand’s philosophic ideas here need only do that, rather than the other stuff (e.g.).

On the latter score, I wondered what you meant by saying you were not a follower of Rand. Did you mean there are some ideas of hers you think incorrect? Which ones? Or did you mean simply that you are not one who falls into thinking everything Rand thought to be true necessarily is true, without thinking critically for oneself?

I hope you will join in discussion of Rand’s ideas.

Stephen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS

There is going to come a day when the last person who knew Rand personally and significantly will have died. . . . I expect that with each passing year after that day, the split between Rand and the Brandens . . . will become a smaller portion of what people attend to in their mining for value in Objectivism.

Edited by Stephen Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The principal objections to Rand's statement are

- its material omission of the real reason for the break, which makes it effectively dishonest;

- its failure to specify what "certain shockingly immoral actions in his private life" were, which makes it an act of hit-and-run malice and about as far from "clear" and "lucid" as you could get.

It's clear in its prose style and persuasive if you don't have all the facts, but that isn't enough. I wonder if Ouray has seen any of the ample biographical material, including the Paxton documentary. If he thinks we spend too much time dwelling on it, I wonder if he's seen SoloPassion (where he'd be most welcome).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The principal objections to Rand's statement are

- its material omission of the real reason for the break, which makes it effectively dishonest;

- its failure to specify what "certain shockingly immoral actions in his private life" were, which makes it an act of hit-and-run malice and about as far from "clear" and "lucid" as you could get.

It's clear in its prose style and persuasive if you don't have all the facts, but that isn't enough. I wonder if Ouray has seen any of the ample biographical material, including the Paxton documentary. If he thinks we spend too much time dwelling on it, I wonder if he's seen SoloPassion (where he'd be most welcome).

Reidy:

"He" is a she...Anna.

Actually, this type of hit and run post is rather sad. One would believe that a person with integrity would stick around to respond to any thoughtful responses.

I have referred to Ayn's clay feet as a way to continue discussing the brilliance of her ideas and how they positively impacted myself and thousands of other individuals.

Additionally, you[Anna] asserted that you were "...not a "cultist" or follower of Rand, but the Brandens were clearly a dubious pair." I found that to be a rather stunning statement.

How did you come to that conclusion? Based on what evidence and from what sources?

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

The term "feet of clay" as applied to Ayn Rand was promoted as an anti-concept by James Valliant over several years (and in PARC) to intimidate anyone who concluded that Rand was not perfect in his peculiar fundy understanding. The fundamental meaning of that term is that reality does not exist, but a false dichotomy does instead.

In practical terms, it is nothing more than "us against them" bigoted bullying crap--i.e., either cry uncle and admit Rand did not have "feet of clay" or be considered as one of the evil "them."

I don't think he originated the term in Rand-Land, but he pushed it with gusto. His peanut gallery did likewise.

I personally don't think of Rand in "feet of clay" or "not feet of clay" terms. The premise is wrong (false dichotomy).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

Most recently, Leonard Peikoff's protégé David Harriman accused John McCaskey of attributing "feet of clay" to Isaac Newton.

All because McCaskey didn't describe Newton's thought process the way Harriman thought he ought to.

"Feet of clay" is a phrase that has lost all credibility in Rand-land.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

The term "feet of clay" as applied to Ayn Rand was promoted as an anti-concept by James Valliant over several years (and in PARC) to intimidate anyone who concluded that Rand was not perfect in his peculiar fundy understanding. The fundamental meaning of that term is that reality does not exist, but a false dichotomy does instead.

In practical terms, it is nothing more than "us against them" bigoted bullying crap--i.e., either cry uncle and admit Rand did not have "feet of clay" or be considered as one of the evil "them."

I don't think he originated the term in Rand-Land, but he pushed it with gusto. His peanut gallery did likewise.

I personally don't think of Rand in "feet of clay" or "not feet of clay" terms. The premise is wrong (false dichotomy).

Michael

Michael:

Interesting. I have used it as a douse of cold water to the "true believer" personality. Plato had feet of clay, Aristotle, etc. I mean it in the sense that all people are human with strengths and weaknesses. However, a personal foible has absolutely nothing to do with the strength and validity of an idea put forth by that person.

I ran across the phase in my extremely limited readings of the Bible, in Daniel (2:31-33), where the prophet interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream of a statue with a head of gold and feet of iron clay. [c. 1600]

However, I see what you mean about Ayn. I also do not see her in those terms, but I prefer to humanize her to the people who I want to get to read her. This last week alone, I got seven (7) new people to read her and five (5) people who read her years ago to re-read her.

Three (3) in a Doctor's office when I took my friend to his appointment. The Dr. is going to re-read her as well as read the Heller and Burns books. His intern, a lovely young lady from Tennessee, who is going to Touro College on L..I, had never heard of her, but she agreed to read her at my and the Dr.'s suggesting.

Three more at the barber shop the day before yesterday.

Today, the owner of our local diner who we have been friends with for years noticed the Heller book in my hand and she is going to read Atlas based on my pitch. She was fascinated by my declaration that Ayn was one of the brightest women that I had ever read and seen in person.

I understand your take on the phrase though.

Thanks.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a "cultist" or follower of Rand, but the Brandens were clearly a dubious pair. I just will never understand the uproar over this statement of Rand's, or over Valliant, for that matter (excepting the short-comings of his dramatic writing style).

Ouray,

People do exist who are neither ARIans nor cult followers, yet share your opinions of TheBrandens, "To Whom It May Concern," and Jim Valliant's book.

But they are extremely rare.

And from what I've been able to discern, their motives for running down TheBrandens while praising PARC and "To Whom It May Concern" make the average ARIan look pure and innocent.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Mayhew implied something similar to "feet of clay."

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-winter/ayn-rand-jennifer-burns.asp

I take this in the way I believe Wilde intended it: to celebrate the greatness of a hero, and not the flaws discovered or invented by the biographer.

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now